Leeds City Council ( By Order)

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords message [12 October] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [ Lords] be now considered.—( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—( The  Second Deputy  Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

The Minister of State was asked—

David Lammy: I am going to take every opportunity to expose the conceit of the Liberal Democrats over the next few months. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that they would turn their backs on the 50 per cent. participation rate and their leader said that they would downgrade their position on tuition fees because they could not cost it after the election. That is the Liberal Democrats' position—conceit and taking our students for granted.

David Lammy: Universities, parents and students up and down the country will be very nervous that a Conservative Government would cut Aimhigher. The socio-economic gap between those in the highest and lowest groups is down by 7 per cent., while participation from the poorest neighbourhoods in the country and from state schools is up. All that is against the backdrop of the Conservatives slashing funding for universities. We have seen an increase of 25 per cent. in the participation rate, so will the hon. Gentleman commit to a 50 per cent.—

Edward Vaizey: The distinguished Government adviser Professor Andrew Cave has said that the wrong sort of regulation will deter private investment. Charles Dunstone of TalkTalk has said that the telephone tax will delay it. Why is the Minister introducing a telephone tax, and a wireless broadband tax of £100 a year that will hit our small businesses?

Tom Watson: Internet service providers will lose income from people who are cut off as a result of allegations of illicit file-sharing, yet the figures used by my hon. Friend's Department to assess the scale of internet piracy are provided by the music industry and are based on a poor sample—fewer than 200—and have been soundly ridiculed by the BBC. Will he give me a guarantee that he will review those figures?

Rosie Winterton: My Department is taking a number of steps to support businesses and promote investment across the regions, including schemes such as grants for business investment, the enterprise finance guarantee and support for collaborative research and development projects. In addition, BIS supports the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, which has spent more than £200 million supporting businesses in the last two years.

Rosie Winterton: Through Yorkshire Forward, we have established Business Link as the first port of call for businesses to get advice, often, for example, on how to have a free financial health check. That has enabled them to put a case together and access the enterprise finance guarantee and other initiatives. I have to say to the hon. Lady that her party voted against all help in such circumstances—

Jeff Ennis: May I tell the Minister that yesterday I was at the launch in Leeds of two research papers commissioned by The Northern Way, highlighting the significant role that all three RDAs—Yorkshire Forward, Northwest RDA and OneNortheast—are playing in supporting local businesses in their regions? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to strengthen the links between the three RDAs if we are to continue to accelerate economic development in the regions and attract skilled workers?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is quite right to point to the work that has been done across the northern regions. The work of The Northern Way has focused very much on what needs to be done during the economic downturn and in planning for the recovery. The work of the RDAs has been absolutely crucial during this time, and the Conservative party has sent out very conflicting messages about the future—

Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that Shipley and England in general can learn from best practice on apprenticeships from across the UK, including Wales and, in my constituency, Rhyl college, which has had a £4 million extension to increase the number of apprenticeships? Will he join me in congratulating Rhyl college, which has been a finalist for a beacon award in open access?

Patrick McFadden: Last year, the Government launched a £6 million, three-year information campaign to make sure that vulnerable workers are aware of their rights and of how to report abuses. As part of our efforts, we recently launched the pay and work rights helpline on 0800 917 2368. It combines the functions of five previous helplines, making it easier for vulnerable workers to report bad treatment at work. Today, we are also announcing specific plans to ban up-front fees in the modelling and entertainment industry, to stop agencies trying to exploit young people who are trying to break into those industries.

Patrick McFadden: It is perfectly normal for member states to be given three years to implement such directives. We will legislate to implement the directive in the coming months, but I have to tell my hon. Friend that if the Opposition had their way, the issue would not be whether the measure was implemented next year or the year after that, but whether it was implemented at all. The Leader of the Opposition said last week—

Rosie Winterton: A number of targeted interventions are working to ensure access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses. They include the enterprise finance guarantee, whereby 6,240 businesses have been offered loans totalling £630 million to date, and the capital for enterprise fund, whereby £60 million has been offered to 40 businesses.

Rosie Winterton: That is not my understanding of what Lord Sugar said. However, there has been very good progress in terms of the enterprise finance guarantee, and, as I said, about £630 million has been offered to small and medium-sized enterprises. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that his party totally opposed those facilities, and that, working with regional development agencies and local authorities, we have not only got real help out there to businesses during these difficult economic times, but set out a very clear plan for the recovery regionally, locally and nationally.

Kevin Brennan: In 2008-09, investment in work-based learning through Train to Gain and apprenticeships was £1.2 billion. The Department has also focused the total adult skills budget towards skills and qualifications that support progression into and within sustainable employment, as set out in the November 2008 investment strategy.

Jim Cunningham: Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), may I ask the Minister what discussions he has had with Tata and Ericsson about the Ansty technology park in Coventry? As my hon. Friend indicated, 700 jobs are going to be cut there arbitrarily, and the potential creation of 2,000 jobs has been stopped. What discussions have taken place with both companies?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I am right in saying that Question 15 has been withdrawn—the grouping is with Question 16.

Ian Lucas: Negotiations between the European Union and the Community of Andean Nations were launched in 2007. The mandate was last revised in December 2008 when, because the Andean nations could not agree a common position— [ Interruption. ]

Patrick McFadden: A number of interventions are working to help access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses. These include the enterprise finance guarantee, by which some 6,200 businesses have been offered loans totalling £630 million to date, and the capital for enterprise fund, by which £60 million has been offered to 40 businesses.

Patrick McFadden: I absolutely accept that access to finance and credit is critical to small businesses. That is why we have acted on this. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which he mentioned, 11 loans have been offered to businesses through that scheme. That is just one part of the country—as I said, the total is 6,000 overall. The issue he raises is vital, which is why we have launched those schemes. The enterprise finance guarantee is having an effect, but we must also remember that most businesses will get credit through conventional bank loans. The Government scheme has never intended to replace conventional bank lending, but to be an additional fund where we will share more of the risk in a particular group of cases.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. That is one reason why the Government have tried to be a better customer and to pay more of our invoices within 10 days, rather than 30 days, as was the case previously. I am glad to say that most Departments have stepped up to the plate on that issue, including the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—more than 90 per cent. of my Department's invoices are met within that 10-day period. In addition, we have launched a prompt payment code with larger businesses. It is also important that they are a good customer to the many small and medium-sized businesses that depend on their business.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister must be aware that August was the seventh consecutive month in which the net flow of finance to business fell, and that the figures for the third quarter of this year are the worst on record for the fall in lending to business. Will he not acknowledge that the Government's efforts to tackle this problem of credit for business over the last nine months—the worst of the credit crunch—have failed, and that they would have been much better advised to take up our suggestion of a large across-the-board loan guarantee scheme, which might have saved quite a number of our struggling businesses?

Ann Winterton: Those are absolutely terrible figures and much higher than one would have expected, especially as so much taxpayers' money has been focused on getting young people into education, employment or training. May I suggest to the Minister that those young people who are fit and well and not included in those three sectors should be encouraged—in fact, made—to work for the local community on worthwhile projects? Our towns and cities are filthy: it is about time that everybody in the local community helped to put that sort of thing right.

Patrick McFadden: We want to see an efficient and modern Royal Mail and have made £1.2 billion available in financing to enable Royal Mail to implement its transformation plans. We welcome the agreement reached last week between Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union, which has resulted in a period of calm to enable negotiations on taking forward the modernisation plan. The critical challenge, of course, for Royal Mail is to modernise in the face of technological change and the growth of alternative means of communication, such as e-mail, texting and broadband internet.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Minister share the dismay of the British people at how Royal Mail—a great British institution—has been downgraded under this Government? Will he ensure that not only does the current truce continue until Christmas, but that the Government take positive action to ensure that once again Royal Mail becomes a flagship institution in our country?

Patrick McFadden: We have certainly not downgraded Royal Mail. We have backed it to the hilt financially. The £1.2 billion that I referred to comes on top of £1.7 billion to support the post office network and on top of more money earlier in this Government to support Royal Mail. Our commitment is not open to question. The issue is transformation in the face of the technological change that affects the lives of each and every one of our constituents, and that is Royal Mail's task. That is why it is so important to get an agreement that is not only signed up to, but properly implemented to ensure the health of this critical British service.

Patrick McFadden: In July, officials met representatives of the British Blind and Shutter Association, when the industry's "Make it Safe" initiative on how to reduce the risk from loop blind cords and chains was discussed. The Department and the industry have agreed a plan to make their guidance available to the widest possible audience, and is working with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to address the important and serious issue that my hon. Friend raised.

Kenneth Clarke: At a time when 51 companies are going bust every day in this country, and when, as we said a few moments ago, the credit position for small businesses is very difficult, does the Minister agree with Lord Sugar, the small business tsar, that struggling small business men are moaners and living in Disneyland, which he undoubtedly said. Is it not time for the Department's senior Minister in the House of Commons to apologise on behalf of the Government for what was said? Otherwise, it will appear that they are indifferent to, and out of tune with, the problems of entrepreneurs up and down the country who are trying to save their businesses and other people's jobs.

Jeff Ennis: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the South Yorkshire Investment Fund, under the leadership of chief executive Mr. Tony Goulbourn, on investing in some 469 south Yorkshire businesses over the past few years? Does he agree that the fund is making a big difference in promoting entrepreneurship in south Yorkshire?

Charles Kennedy: Following on from the earlier exchanges on fair access to higher and tertiary education, do the Government accept that the cause of fairer access was hardly helped this autumn by the difficulties that the Student Loans Company ran into? Members from all parties in the House have been pressing for a proper inquiry arising there-from. Can the Minister say what steps will be taken to ensure that students do not encounter the monumental backlogs that were experienced in England particularly, but which had knock-on effects elsewhere, not least in Scotland?

Kevin Brennan: The establishment of an ombudsman raises a number of complex issues. Obviously we will weigh up a number of factors—including possible costs or savings being passed on to consumers, the potential for a better deal for suppliers and the regulatory burdens on business—before we take our final decision.

Patrick McFadden: I will happily accede to my hon. Friend's request for a meeting. As I have said—I was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller)—we do not want to see the recession and these difficult economic times used as an excuse to deny people the employment rights to which they are entitled. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue.

Patrick McFadden: Competition in the parcels industry has been far more developed than in the letters business for many years. This is a competitive market, and there is a lot of competition within it. My regret is that, in this area of future growth for Royal Mail—probably in contrast to the letters business—the recent industrial disputes could drive customers away from Royal Mail. It would be a great shame if that happened. I hope to see Royal Mail compete in this market, because it is genuinely the future growth area for mail.

Mark Todd: Has the Minister heard the same representations that I have heard concerning companies that believe that European regulatory steps could impede their ability to hedge on their currency—a vital activity for export-oriented businesses? South Derbyshire is dominated by just those kinds of companies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I raise with the Minister the subject of further education and the National Star college? The college provides some of the finest residential training anywhere in the world, and it has worked extremely hard to raise £2 million of its own money, which will be in jeopardy if it cannot access funding from the Government. It has also worked very hard at the Minister's behest to take 15 per cent. off the cost of the project. Will he redouble his efforts to see whether he can find that funding?

Kevin Brennan: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the National Star college, and I undertake to carry on my efforts to look into this matter. This particular proposal is part of the huge investment in further education that has covered more than 700 projects in 330 colleges in the past few years, at a cost of £2.7 billion.

Norman Baker: The Minister will share my dismay at the grotesque disruption caused to passengers from Brighton to Bedford and elsewhere on the network. The Secretary of State took strong action against London Midland in relation to events that occurred in September, and I welcomed the written statement about that. Can the Minister tell us what action, if any, he intends to take against First Capital Connect, and if the answer is "None", will he tell us what is the difference between those two events?
	Will the Minister provide Members with an analysis by the train operating company showing what percentage of train services depend on voluntary shift working, which has been the cause of massive disruption and cancellations today? Is it not rather worrying that so many trains are dependent on that? Will he also urge the rail union ASLEF to call off the threat of a strike on which it is to hold a ballot whose result will be known on 9 December? Will he suggest that both sides sit down with ACAS, and with the Department for Transport if appropriate? If, as he suggested at the beginning of his statement, industrial action is indeed co-ordinated—I think that that was the word he used—by the rail union ASLEF, is that legal without a ballot?

Chris Mole: I asserted in my statement that the action appeared to be co-ordinated by employees, and I will not go beyond that assertion today.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the position on the use of voluntary and shift working was the same that in other train companies. We are currently trying to determine the extent to which that arrangement is a problem, but it is clear that it is not universal, although it has been inherited by some franchises from former British Rail regions. We will continue to monitor the situation closely in order to be able to answer some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has posed.

Patrick Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the merits of a dispute and whatever the issues involved—including the issue, which has been raised today, of whether a company should rely on overtime to run basic services—punishing the passengers is never the answer, and is never acceptable? Will he make it clear that the Government will consider the wider issues involving how the company operates, and how the union is dealing with these matters?

Kelvin Hopkins: As a daily user of First Capital Connect services, I have a personal interest in the situation—particularly today, because train cancellations caused me to miss Question Time. Last year First Capital Connect was given the  Evening Standard award for the company that combined the worst service with the biggest profits. May I ask my hon. Friend to intervene with the company, and suggest that it solve the problem by spending more of its profits on drivers?

Andrew Selous: My constituents endured similar problems with London Midland earlier in the year. Does the Minister not agree that at the heart of the problem is the fact that railway companies are relying on drivers with shift patterns involving four-day weeks? Will he ensure that when he awards franchise agreements in future, the staffing arrangements are robust and do not rely on good-will and overtime for the provision of a proper seven-days-a-week service?

Peter Lilley: My constituents will be as grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) as her own will be for bringing the Minister before the House today to answer these questions. My constituents have been flooding me with e-mails complaining about not only cancellations, but short trains, overcrowding and poor communication by the company. Many of them are spending more than £3,000 a year on season tickets and they want to know whether they will get any reimbursement for the failure to deliver the services for which they have paid. They also want to know from the Minister, who says that these actions appear to be co-ordinated, whether such actions are, thus, outside the law? Does that mean that the company can take action against the unions, or do the Government propose to do so?

Chris Mole: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, already have welcomed the investment that the Government intend to make in the Thameslink service over the coming years: some £5.5 billion of investment will be made to improve trains, stations and frequency of service to meet the capacity on one of our busiest railway lines. I am sure that he will want to support that. Reimbursement is a matter for the company—as, indeed, is judging whether the co-ordinated action is anything more than just that.

Geoffrey Robinson: I note the Minister's strictures about drivers, but will he also bear in mind the fact that the company involved has a terrible record? Therefore, will he—or one of his ministerial colleagues—stand ready to intervene personally if it fails to get an agreement with the drivers and others in the very near future?

Graham Stuart: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), will the Minister explain to the House how the public can feel that the Government are an honest broker between the unions and the companies in this outrageous situation, especially when I notice that in just six years there have been 81 donations by ASLEF to the Conservative party—sorry, I mean the Labour party— [ Interruption. ] Sadly, not to the Conservative party. They totalled £359,554.01. Is it not true that this Labour Government have been bought and paid for by the unions, are no longer honest and cannot be trusted?

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 2 July I wrote to the Financial Secretary on the subject of Mr. Richard Summersgill in his role as director of both the child benefit office and the tax credit office—two sites 130 miles apart. I wrote to the Financial Secretary because I found Mr. Summersgill difficult to contact. I am not aware of either an e-mail address or a telephone number through which I can contact him, although my staff have made repeated efforts to do so. I wrote to the Minister about contact in July, and at one stage got members of my staff to ring the Minister's office daily, before I received an apology three weeks ago. I was told that this had slipped through the net, and promised that I would receive a response from HMRC the following week. Three weeks later, after months of effort, I am still none the wiser.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that it was widely anticipated that there would be a motion before the House before Prorogation to approve the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy as the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? The fact that that has not appeared on the Order Paper is a matter of great concern. We cannot raise it with the Leader of the House, because she has cancelled business questions for today. What can be done to ensure that that very important appointment is approved—or rather, put before Members of the House of Commons for approval—as soon as possible?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's observations will have been noted by the House—and, I suspect, by the person about whom he is complaining.

David Davis: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend can give me an assurance about what would happen in the event of a Conservative Government taking office after the next election? At some point, the Chilcot inquiry will produce a proposal to allow intercept to be used in court. If it transpires that intercept is the only issue that causes the Government to require a secret inquiry of some sort or another, will he give me an undertaking that we would change the law to remove unnecessary secret inquiries?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the next point that I want to address.
	The Government came up with their amendment in the other place, but my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is right that it proposes a full judicial scrutiny process, with a Minister making an application to a court in a hearing at which interested parties can make representations. I would have preferred that. As I said earlier, if I had had the opportunity to table an amendment to that effect yesterday evening, I would have done so, but I must accept that it is now impossible procedurally to achieve that desirable end. Indeed, that is what the Secretary of State told me, and I do not think that he was trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
	Essentially, amendment 1B is a fall-back position, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire is right that it raises questions. It seems to me that, in effect, it asks the Lord Chief Justice to take an administrative rather than a judicial decision—based, I suppose, on his independence and sagacity—because the Lord Chancellor has to get his agreement to a transfer from inquest to inquiry.
	In the other place, Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised that concern specifically. He said:
	"I assume—I hope this is correct—that the Government consulted the Lord Chief Justice when they put forward this proposal, so that he knows about it and is willing to undertake this extremely important judgment at the stage when it is supposed to me made."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 830.]
	He also pointed out that if the Lord Chief Justice were to decline to move from inquest to inquiry it would be, he assumed, the end of the matter.
	In reply, Lord Bach made it clear that the Lord Chief Justice was aware of the proposal and—I infer—has not expressed the view that he could not undertake that role. At the same time, it is also clear that he would have the final say in the matter. Quite a lot of the debate in the other place was taken up with Lord Bach seeking to provide reassurance to the noble Lords that the procedure being proposed genuinely involved giving the Lord Chief Justice an effective veto over whether the shift would take place.
	For the reasons that I have already given, I hope that we are not putting on the Lord Chief Justice a burden that we should not place on him. I have a residual anxiety about that. Secondly, I had anxieties when the proposal went to the other place that the wording was such that the Government amendment could be construed as amounting to no more than an ability to say, "You can't have such a judge", and that another name would be put up automatically rather than giving the Lord Chief Justice a genuine veto over the process. Such was the extent of my anxiety that while the proposal was in the other place, I sought at the last minute to change the wording from "that judge" to "a judge". The Government's response was that that was not necessary. A series of assurances were given during the debate, which I am sure that the Secretary of State will repeat, to the effect that what was intended was a genuine judicial lock through the Lord Chief Justice.
	I repeat that I am grateful that the Secretary of State has listened. Notwithstanding that, however, I hope that he will not take it amiss that I have tabled a further amendment. The reason for doing so was that if the Government's intention is correct and their drafting is right, the further amendment cannot be regarded as anything other than affirming their amendment—it is innocuous in intention; it will not wreck or damage the Government's proposal; and it will not cause the Government any further problem.
	Our amendment (a) makes it clear that the approval is not just about the start of the judicial process for the inquiry and the appointment of the judge, but that the Lord Chief Justice also has to indicate approval for the Lord Chancellor to request the coroner to suspend the investigation. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly said a moment ago, that provides slightly wider discretion in the consideration of what the issues might be and—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—ensures that the grounds on which we move from inquest to inquiry are very narrow.
	I am sorry that the amendment was tabled at such a late stage, but we are in this place to do our job right to the end. For the reasons that I have set out, I think the amendment is a real improvement that I hope the Government can accept.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. and learned Friend think that the consequence of his amendment (a) would be that more information will have to be provided to the Lord Chief Justice than otherwise? Clearly, in deciding the identity and approving the judge, one set of criteria would be important—namely, that the appointment is suitable—but whether the suspension should occur is a slightly wider question. Does my hon. and learned Friend think his proposal would affect the material on which the decision would be made?

Dominic Grieve: Again, my hon. Friend has made a good point. One of the deficiencies of the system that the Government have decided to adopt—although at this late stage, it is the best that we shall get—is that the nature of the communications that would take place between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice is not clear. Lord Bach tried to set out something of the procedure, but it is clear that to a degree it would be marked by exchange of letters and, possibly, a meeting. He made it clear that the exchange of letters is unlikely subsequently to be made public, which is something that I have to accept in view of the system that has been set up. It thus puts a considerable burden on the Lord Chief Justice. However, mindful of the fact that I have been given a very clear indication that he is willing to take that burden on board, I think that to provide the public with some degree of reassurance that the process will not be hijacked by politicians, we have to accept that it is the best we can get.
	I agree with my hon. Friend on a move to a much more formalised application system. Indeed, were I ever to succeed in the private Member's Bill ballot, that might be a fertile measure to bring forward, particularly in view of the Secretary of State's agreement that such a system would be a more desirable way to proceed. On the face of it, the proposal appears to command approval across the House, which is the first precondition for getting a private Member's Bill on to the statute book. My hon. Friend has made a very important point.
	The proposal is not perfect—at the end of the day there is no perfection in any of these things—and I sympathise with the Government, because I recognise that they have a real and not a manufactured problem. I am sorry that we have reached this stage of the Bill without doing better, but at this stage I believe that the Government amendment, which was offered and passed in the other place, is a considerable improvement. I further believe that my amendment to that amendment is just an additional safeguard and reassurance. For that reason, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will accept it. We could then finish the Bill on a note of consensus, which we have frequently striven to achieve.

David Heath: I am a little surprised to be called ahead the Lord Chancellor, but I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words.
	At this stage of a Bill, it worries me that expediency and pragmatism often take over from principle and legal accuracy, and we end up with statutes that are often a process of negotiation rather than what any party to the negotiation would like in the Bill. I am concerned that that is precisely what is happening with this Bill. Later we shall reach a point where the Government, having marched their troops to the top of the hill, will proceed to march them down again—yet again, which I regret. However, despite the fact that in a moment I shall be supporting the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to indicate that I think that, at least in this House, he is doing something valuable, I have to say that I regret entirely the fact that after a very close vote in this House on the key issue, on the basis of the words in lieu moved by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues in the other place felt that they could contribute nothing whatsoever to the debate. Indeed, Lord Henley said:
	"For us, to oppose it at this stage or to support it would not be the right way".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 829.]
	What sort of loyal Opposition cannot even decide whether they support or oppose a key part of a Bill on which there was a close Division in this Chamber?

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman is pleading—improbably—the consistency of the Liberal Democrat party, can he explain how last week in the other place, Baroness Miller managed to get through a comprehensive set of proposals that would have allowed intercept evidence to be adduced in coroners' inquests? That was far more significant than the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). In the event, that amendment would have been of little significance although it would have made for defective legislation. The Liberal Democrats marched their troops up the hill in the other place to get those proposals through, yet in this place they sat on their hands and by doing so agreed to the Government's position, and that of the Opposition, that the amendments were barking mad and should not go through. Can he explain that inconsistency?

David Heath: To say that we sat on our hands when we supported in a very close Division the proposals of the hon. Member for Hendon seems a most extraordinary position for the Lord Chancellor to take, but rather than pursue an utterly sterile argument—

David Heath: Very well, let us accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and let us move on to the substance of the current proposal. I do not think that Lords amendment 1B quite counts as Government plan B—it is probably plan C or D at this stage—but it is the alternative formulation that was presented to another place. Notwithstanding my reservations about the whole process, we must consider the proposal's merits. It will introduce a lock of sorts, but it is a very deficient lock, as it will provide only one circumstance in which the Lord Chief Justice can intervene, which is in the choice of the judge who will officiate. That lock seems inadequate, because it does not allow for the circumstances in which the Executive have chosen to put this matter into the hands of a secret inquiry to be considered by the judiciary. If that route were followed, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would prefer a proper process of application. That is not what is proposed, but nor is it proposed that the Lord Chief Justice will have at his disposal any of the reasoning behind the transfer in any case. His decision will be based simply on, as was described earlier, an administrative matter of whom the officiating judicial official should be.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there will be a full lock in the sense that the Lord Chief Justice could continue to refuse to accept the appointment of any judge—in effect, refusing one after another—thus dealing with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has been extremely brief so far in his remarks—this is in no way a criticism—but I am conscious that some Back-Bench Members want not merely to intervene but perhaps to make speeches, if there is time. We have until 1 o'clock to consider this matter. The Lord Chancellor's views will be sought shortly, and I hope that Front-Bench Members can bear in mind that consideration.

David Heath: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I often accept interventions in order to allow colleagues to get their points on record.
	Let me be very brief in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Hypothetically, what he suggests is possible.  [ Interruption ] The Lord Chancellor says from a sedentary position that it is what would happen, but it is a very unsatisfactory position. If the Lord Chief Justice objects in principle to the transfer, to do so by means of effectively vetoing the judge proposed as the supervising judge does not seem a satisfactory mechanism. That is why the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal is a good one, because it would provide not entirely for an application to the Lord Chief Justice, but at least for an explanation to be made to him. In effect, the Lord Chief Justice would be given residuary power to intervene, if he believed that the Executive were abusing their position. The key issue is whether it is right for the Executive to determine that matters in respect of a death of a person as the result of the agents of the Executive should be heard not in a coroner's court but in an inquiry system held in secret. We must not forget that basic principle while considering the complexities of process.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal would at least provide an additional safeguard. That is why I will support it today, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will accept amendment (a) to finish the job. The proposals have been developed quite rapidly. I note that Lord Bach said that Lord Chancellor was on the phone or communicating in some way with the Lord Chief Justice yesterday morning before the debate in another place. I hope that Lord Chancellor will accept amendment (a), that it will be passed by the House and that it will be accepted by his colleagues in the other place, and therefore no further time need be lost.

Jack Straw: I will attempt to be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker, because other hon. Members want to take part not only in this debate but in the following one.
	I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for what he said about trying to adopt a constructive approach—I am at risk of complimenting him—and I accept that he has tried to do so, too. Most hon. Members accepted that we had a problem that had to be dealt with, and I assumed from the fact that the Liberal Democrats agreed with every other party in the House that they in this House also accepted that we had a problem that could not be dealt with by a normal inquest with a jury; otherwise, they would have voted for Baroness Miller's amendments, but they did not—they agreed to them, as did the rest of the House. It is very important that no myths are developed.
	On the hon. and learned Gentleman's central point, yes, in my judgment as well as his, it would have been better if we could have developed a bespoke process by which the Secretary of State had to make an initial decision and go to court to get approval for it. There would have been hearings by both parties. Not only is that my position, but I developed it and it appeared in clause 11—this has been a bit like a frustration dream in which we think that we have an answer, but someone comes up with another objection—and I thought that that squared the circle. The objection, which I understand, was that that would compromise the integrity of inquests and therefore that we should go down the inquiry route. Frankly, it would not possible in the context of the Inquiries Act 2005 to deliver in the same time the same kind of bespoke process.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) might, however, wish to take note of the fact that there are two ways—one is inherent in the administration of justice, the second is embedded in the Bill—in which the courts will be able to have what amounts to the final say over the Secretary of State's decision to make use of an inquiry under the 2005 Act for the purpose of an investigation into a death that requires an article 2 complaint investigation.
	The first way is by judicial review. The Secretary of State's decision would be judicially reviewable. We have discussed that before under clause 11. It would not be as satisfactory as if we had a bespoke process whereby the Secretary of State had to go to court, but judicial review is widely used and would be available. During a judicial review, the Secretary of State would have to show the administrative court why he or she thought it necessary to exercise his or her discretion to go down the inquiry route, rather than the accepted and normal route of an inquest with a jury. I am happy to put that on the record, so that it can be used in any future judicial review. I understand the suspicions—of course I do—and I have made it clear that I am no more comfortable with the principle than are others. The fact of the matter is that the whole system, including the Secretary of State, is doing its very best to lean over backwards to ensure that a normal inquest with a jury is held in every possible circumstance. That was why one was held in the de Menezes case, notwithstanding the earlier concerns that it might not be possible to do so.
	The second safeguard is what has been written into the Bill. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind me disclosing the fact that, when we discussed the matter on Monday, he proposed an amendment that would have required the consent of the Lord Chief Justice. I accepted its purpose. I asked for it to be put in a proper form, and it duly was. That comes down to exactly the same point. It was put before the other place, and agreed there, that the third limb of the trigger sub-paragraph should be that the Lord Chief Justice must indicate
	"approval to the Lord Chancellor, for the purposes of this paragraph, of the appointment of that judge."
	I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press amendment (a) to a Division, and point out that the amendment is unnecessary. I say this in the politest possible way: we would be wasting the time of this House and the other place if he pressed it to a Division and it was agreed to. His purpose is entirely covered by proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(c).
	I was asked whether I had consulted the Lord Chief Justice on the subject; I have done so. It is a very important part of the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary that further details are not given; it is for the Lord Chancellor to speak for himself. However, I have consulted the Lord Chief Justice, and it would have been extraordinary if I had not done so.
	Let me help the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). Proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(c) says
	"the appointment of that judge".
	In the context of this debate, that means any judge. I have to go to the Lord Chief Justice on quite a regular basis to suggest the appointment of judges for particular purposes, sometimes judicial, sometimes quasi-judicial. If he disapproves of the purpose, he simply says, "You can't have this judge and, Lord Chancellor, you can't have any judge," and that is the end of the matter. The Lord Chief Justice has a complete and absolute veto in that regard, and that is how I want it to be.

Christopher Huhne: It would be useful if the Lord Chancellor put on record what I understood him to say earlier from a sedentary position—that the Lord Chief Justice could go on exercising that veto, should he so desire.

Jack Straw: I am happy to put that on the record. The Lord Chief Justice could, and would, go on exercising that veto. In the real world, the way it works is that he would say, "Lord Chancellor, I do not accept that this is a proper purpose for a High Court judge, so I won't nominate anybody." If he says that, that is the end of the matter; I need to make that absolutely clear.
	I plead with the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his amendment, because if we agree to amendment (a), the matter would go to the other place, where another amendment would be passed, but that frankly detains the House and the other place quite unnecessarily. Proposed sub-paragraph (1)(c) in amendment 1B, moved by the noble Lord Bach in the other place, says that the Lord Chief Justice— [Interruption.] Might I have the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman? The sub-paragraph says:
	"the Lord Chief Justice has indicated approval to the Lord Chancellor, for the purposes of this paragraph, of the appointment of that judge."
	The paragraph in question is paragraph 3 of schedule 1. The paragraph is about suspensions pending inquiry under the 2005 Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is covered by the drafting in that paragraph, so there is absolutely a belt-and-braces approach.
	In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Bach referred to the fact that I intended to consult the Lord Chief Justice on the promulgation of a protocol about the exercise of discretion—the Lord Chancellor's discretion to ask for a judge, and the Lord Chief Justice's discretion to agree, or otherwise, to the appointment of a judge. It might also be appropriate for such a protocol to consider the circumstances in which the Home Secretary or Defence Secretary of the day would wish to trigger an inquiry in the first place.
	I should like to put on record a point relating to an issue that has not been discussed at any length in this place. Under the 2005 Act, there is provision for a Secretary of State, having appointed an inquiry, to issue directions to it, once it is running. That is because certain inquiries of a quasi-judicial nature may—without going into any detail—get out of hand, take too long, spend too much money, and end up not producing a product, and directions could be needed. An inquiry under the Bill would be not a quasi-judicial inquiry, but a judicial inquiry. I therefore accept that the issue of directions by the Secretary of State, after an appointment has been made and an inquiry established, would be inappropriate. It would be interference in a judicial process. I am happy to put that on the record. The Lord Chief Justice would, in any case, wish to take those matters into account when coming to a decision on whether to appoint a particular judge, or any other judge.

Jack Straw: We all agree that the Lord Chief Justice, when deciding whether to appoint a particular judge, any other judge or no judge, will want to take into account whether he is satisfied that the normal inquest should be suspended. How else could he make a decision? My plea to the House is to bear in mind that there is no substantive difference between the two sides of the Chamber on the issue. We would waste time if amendment (a) were agreed to, because the matter would have to go to the other place and come back again. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is covered by amendment 1B, with which we agree—let me just make that clear. There is no point in legislating unnecessarily. That amendment already says:
	"has indicated approval to the Lord Chancellor, for the purposes of this paragraph".
	The purposes of that paragraph—paragraph 3 to schedule 1 —is as clear as a pikestaff, because its heading is "Suspension pending inquiry under Inquiries Act 2005".
	I think that I have made my point. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to recognise that I have given him 100 per cent. reassurance about the purpose of paragraph 3. I hope that we can make the rest of this debate very short, and get on to the next issue.

Oliver Heald: The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has made a strong case for his view that the Lords amendment already goes far enough, but I am sorry to tell him that I still have doubts about that. The crucial thing about a coroner is that he is an independent judge who investigates and decides who a person was, whether they died, and if they did, why they died, or what they died of. That role goes back in our history to a time when this country was very troubled, and important people felt that they might be able to take the law into their own hands. It has been an important protection for our people, going back centuries.
	It is clear from schedule 1 that we suspend coroners' investigations only in rare and important circumstances. If somebody is charged with murder, the coroner's investigation will be suspended so that there can be a fair criminal trial. There are also other limited circumstances in which that would happen. It has been a principle for a very long time that one does not suspend a coroner's investigation except in very important circumstances. We are facing threats of terrorism, which can lead to deaths, and a war in Afghanistan, which can lead to deaths, and sometimes the circumstances of those deaths may be of embarrassment to the Government and to the powers that be. From the very beginning, therefore, the worry with the Bill has been that in those circumstances, there might be a desire for a secret process that is not as open as a coroner's inquest. It is therefore good that we have been able to debate the issue over a period to try to reach the point where a coroner's investigation cannot be stopped by ministerial fiat.
	That concern has boiled down to the situation before us, where it is accepted that there might be an inquiry—rather than an inquest—and, therefore, a suspension, whereby the investigation might need to be taken in private. The only example that I can think of is when something like intercept evidence is involved, and I think that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) takes the same view.
	That brings us to the amendments. The lock, which the Lord Chancellor has proposed, is that it would be for the Lord Chancellor to decide whether to suspend the inquest and have an inquiry; a senior judge would then be appointed as chairman of the inquiry; but the Lord Chief Justice would be able to indicate that he did not want to approve the appointment of that judge. As the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor has said, that could mean any judge, but the solution that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggests in amendment (a) is a far less cumbersome mechanism. Proposed new paragraph 1(1)(d) of schedule 1 would make it clear from the outset that the Lord Chief Justice had to give approval not just to the appointment of that judge, but to the suspension of the inquest. That is a different question.

Jack Straw: This issue is really important, because Lords amendment 1B would amend paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 so that it stated:
	"Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a senior coroner must suspend an investigation under this Part of this Act into a person's death if—
	(b) a senior judge has been appointed under that Act"—
	the Inquiries Act 2005—
	"as chairman of the inquiry."
	The senior judge could not be appointed unless the Lord Chief Justice had consented. He would have an absolute lock on that, under the Lords amendment, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.

Andrew Dismore: My main concern throughout this long-running debate, going right back to the counter-terrorism legislation, has been whether we will have an article 2-compliant process. I am still not entirely convinced—even with the Lords amendment and, indeed, amendment (a) from the Opposition Front-Bench team—that we will end up with an article 2-compliant process. However, I shall not go into that in more detail, because we have debated it at great length.
	My first point, which I put to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in my intervention, is about the lack of a trigger mechanism. It would be very helpful if my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said that the only circumstance in which he can envisage the power being used is if an intercept question has to be resolved. That would go a long way to providing satisfaction.
	The real issue is about the lack of safeguards, and, if I compare the original proposals for civil inquests with today's proposals on judicial oversight, I am not sure that we have moved a great deal further on. My right hon. Friend says that the decision to request that a coroner suspend an inquest would be subject to judicial review, but that is a narrow test—certainly narrower than the Opposition's proposal for, effectively, the suspension's approval by the Lord Chief Justice.
	I follow my right hon. Friend's argument about whether proposed new paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 cross-refers with the original process, but my main concern is that we could end up in limbo: on the one hand, the Lord Chancellor would say, "We want a secret inquest"; and on the other, the Lord Chief Justice would say, "You can't have a judge for it". We would be left in limbo, because there would be no way of resolving that issue. The beauty of the proposal from the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, however, is that it would resolve the issue, by stating that the inquest could not be suspended unless the Lord Chief Justice had approved the decision. That would represent a much broader test than the judicial review test, because the Lord Chief Justice would be able to look at all the evidence—including the secret evidence that might not be admissible in a judicial review application.

Jack Straw: There will have to be an inquest. If the request is turned down and there is, therefore, no suspension, the inquest will continue in any event. There is a separate issue about whether that inquest would then be article 2-compliant, which sort of begs the original question. Of course, if the Lord Chief Justice says, "I'm not giving you a judge," paragraph 1, as amended already, means that there will not be a suspension of the inquest—full stop. There cannot be.

Andrew Dismore: Well, that is my concern, because I am not entirely convinced that the wording under the Lords amendment would achieve that. We would end up in limbo: on the one hand, the Lord Chancellor would say, "Secret inquiry"; on the other hand, the Lord Chief Justice would say, "You can't have a judge." We would end up exactly where we are with the Azelle Rodney case—four years on and no inquiry into it.
	My right hon. Friend knows that when we last debated the issue, he won the Division by eight votes. It was probably closer than he thinks, however, because several people said to me afterwards, "We went into the wrong Lobby by mistake." That demonstrates the strength of feeling on the Labour Benches. There is nothing to be lost in accepting the Opposition's formulation, because it would strengthen the wording and achieve, beyond peradventure, what my right hon. Friend says he wants to achieve through the Lords amendment.

Denis MacShane: I am broadly in the same camp as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), because I feel that I voted the wrong way on Monday. However, I am a serial loyalist, and sometimes that overwhelms me.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is probably the greatest circle-squarer whom Whitehall has seen in recent years. I tend to follow him, but I remember that when we worked together at the Foreign Office he would come to me and say, "We may be going in this direction, Denis, but it is about-turn time and swallow-humble-pie time, and I am afraid that is the political reality." On this cause, he may not have the votes of the House, so I ask him to consider whether that moment has arrived.
	My thinking stems, first, from a fundamental principle that is enshrined in the terms habeas corpus. It translates as "produce the body", and it applies as much to the dead as to the living. A core human right is to know how and under what conditions somebody died. If we do not have that right, we do not have full democracy. Families cannot grieve and injustices cannot be put right. That is why the coroners' jury surveillance system is of the most profound democratic importance. I wish there were far more of it in Africa, Latin America and Asia, and I am very reluctant to see any watering-down of it in our own country.
	Of course, I fully accept my right hon. Friend's sincerity, but I well recall our great right hon. Friend, Michael Foot, saying in the 1970s that if the freedoms and liberties of Britain had been left in the hands of judges, we would have precious few. He got terrible stick from the learned QC profession about that—the Thomas Leggs and others were out there bashing him about the head—but I actually think he was right. When I hear, "The Executive will talk to a senior judge and, er, that's all right", I am afraid I start to become more and more of a Footite and less and less of a Strawite. These things can happen.
	I have some direct experience of the matter, because some 19 years ago I became involved tangentially, through a friend, in the case of eight British fusiliers who were killed by friendly fire in the first Iraq conflict. They were brought home, but they could not be buried until there had been a coroner's inquest, because a person cannot be buried in the UK without the coroner's say-so. We found the most constant lying, deceit, obfuscation, dishonesty and cover-up on the part of the Conservative party, which was in power.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 9 November).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).
	 Lords amendment 1B agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 59, 119, 121, 236 and 239— ( Mr. Straw )

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A (7) ),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Policing and Crime Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 19 January and 19 May 2009 (Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) and Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— (Mr. Hanson.)
	 Question agreed to.

David Ruffley: Clauses 6, 7 and 9 make certain procedural amendments to the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in order to streamline the authorisation process for matters such as surveillance and, in particular, covert human intelligence sources or CHISs. Where collaboration is necessary, amendments to the RIPA authorisation are required. The Government anticipate greater collaboration between police forces, two or more, in which they enter into agreements to deliver better policing and—one hopes—some efficiencies. We are strong supporters of such arrangements and we therefore support Lords amendment 1.
	Subject to certain conditions being satisfied, authorisation by one collaborating force for such surveillance activities or use of CHISs could be extended to members of another collaborating force, removing the need for duplicate authorisations to be issued by both collaborating forces. We supported this in Committee and we are pleased to do so again today.

Alan Campbell: Amendments 6 to 15 respond to the concerns raised during the debates in this House about the potential scope of clause 13. Broadly, the amendments mean that it will be an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage them to provide the sexual services. A person engages in exploitative conduct if he practices any form of deception or uses force, threats—whether or not relating to violence—or any other form of coercion. This recognises that not all forms of coercion involve the use of physical abuse. Amendment 46 responds to concerns raised in this House and in the other place about the need for safeguards in the provisions creating the new rehabilitative orders for those convicted of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The amendment places an upper limit of 72 hours on the period for which someone can be held in police detention after being arrested in pursuance of a warrant following breach of such an order.
	Amendments 47 and 48 require a court to be satisfied that before issuing a closure notice the police took reasonable steps to identify any person with an interest in the premises and that they were given a copy of the notice, before a closure order is made.
	Amendments 16 to 20, 22 to 23, 60 and 63 change the name of the new category of sex establishment introduced by clause 27 from "sex encounter venue" to "sexual entertainment venue" in response to concerns that the term "sex encounter venue" could inadvertently stigmatise those who work in lap-dancing clubs.
	Amendments 21, 24, 61 and 62 are minor and technical amendments that ensure that once premises have been granted a sex establishment licence in order to operate as sexual entertainment venues, they will be deemed to be a sexual entertainment venue for the duration of their licence, irrespective of how frequently relevant entertainment is provided.
	Amendments 49 to 51 place a duty on local authorities that have not adopted the lap-dancing provisions within one year of commencement to consult local people to ensure they are given the opportunity to express their views as to whether the provisions should be adopted or not.
	I hope that the House will agree the amendments.

Keith Vaz: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend was not available, otherwise I am sure that we would have taken him with us.
	We engaged some ladies in a conversation about how they got there and what they were doing. They, too, we concerned that this was in some way a reflection on them. While accepting all the points that I know that my right hon. Friend—he is my dear friend, and was my successor as Minister for Europe—will make, the fact remains that we have real concerns about enforcement. The amendments help, but in dealing with enforcement, the Government need to work closely with the Metropolitan police, so that we do not take on an issue wider than was intended in the legislation.

Paul Holmes: As the Minister said, Lords amendments 6 to 10 improve the definition of how we establish that a sex worker has been coerced into that line of work. They use the words "exploitative conduct", which allow for a wider definition that includes things such as deception and threats—for example, the withdrawal of accommodation—rather than the earlier definition, which relied much more on threats of physical violence and others of a similar nature. The definition to be used, therefore, is an improvement, and one that we welcome.
	As the Minister knows, we still have concerns about some of the intention behind it and the use of strict liability. Only one country in the world uses the strict liability definition for prosecuting clients of sex workers—Finland—but in the first two and a half years, no prosecutions were brought under that law. From January to June this year—the latest six months of the three years for which the scheme has been running in Finland—there have been two successful prosecutions. Such measures do not have a very good track record, therefore, and magistrates and judges in this country have expressed considerable doubt about achieving prosecutions using that concept. We welcome the improved definition, but we still have considerable reservations about the intention to prosecute on strict liability and its effectiveness.
	Lords Amendments 16 to 20, 22, 23, 60 and 63, to which the Minister referred, change the legal definition of a lap dancing club from "sex encounter venue" to "sexual entertainment venue". That is a step forward. Many young women working in such venues expressed concern that the original definition was prejudicial to what they regarded as a straightforward entertainment process. It was said in the other place that the legal definition and description being applied to lap dancing clubs was much harsher than that applied to the same process in a film. However, those arguments might have been overdone: for example, watching a scene in the American series "The Sopranos" with lap dancers in the background would be rather different—in style, intensity and content—from being in lap-dancing premises before a naked, or semi-naked, lap dancer, especially as someone can pay for a dance in a private room in which only one person, plus the lap dancer, might be present. That difference marks out the latter from the same process in a film. None the less, "sexual entertainment venue" is an improvement, although perhaps it does not go far enough. As Liberal Democrats said in the other place, we would have preferred a definition such as "adult entertainment venue" rather than "sexual entertainment venue", but the latter is a welcome improvement none the less.
	Amendments 47 and 48 introduce a third condition for courts to be satisfied on before accepting a police proposal to close a brothel. Again, there were considerable discussions in Committee in January and February, later on Third Reading and in the other place about the danger of overemphasising police powers to close brothels, because many sex workers—many of us on the Committee met with many sex workers who visited the House of Commons to lobby and talk to us—were concerned that the over-zealous use of powers to close brothels would present a much greater danger to the safety of sex workers, because it is much safer and more secure to work in a small brothel, involving two or three people working off the streets, than to work on the streets. The amendments are a welcome step forward; they recognise some of the concerns raised over the past year during the Bill's passage through the Commons and the other place.
	Finally, under amendments 49 to 51, local authorities that do not adopt the new provisions on regulating lap-dancing clubs must consult local people. That, too, is a welcome step forward, but will the Minister suggest how that consultation will take place? In Chesterfield, for example, we have nine community forums covering the town. Would a consultation through a community forum be enough to meet the requirements in the amendments? Having chaired one of those forums years ago, before I became a Member of Parliament, I know well that only a small number of people tend to turn up—the same dedicated group—apart from when there is a controversial issue, whether planning or, in this case, lap dancing. On such occasions, a larger group tends to turn up that is perhaps unrepresentative of the community at large. Exactly what level of consultation would have to take place to meet the requirements in amendments 49 to 51?

Denis MacShane: I am shocked that my hon. Friend says that there is a lap-dancing club in her constituency proposing to build 50 private booths. We just heard from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes)—the Lib Dems are now the party of lap-dancing supporters—but 50 private booths? What on earth does she think will happen in them? A discussion of Lib Dem policy?

Lynda Waltho: The question has been the subject of quite a lot of debate in Stourbridge. A stamp-collecting club meets quite close to the lap-dancing club. We wondered whether it might be using the booths for swapping stamps.
	The feeling among local residents that I have described led them to think, "This is not the sort of establishment that I want to live by," but they found that they could not object. That is how I started on this road. What is good about the reforms is that they will allow local authorities that wish to do so to apply greater controls on clubs and give local people greater powers to prevent lap-dancing clubs from opening. That is the good bit. However, I am still disappointed—and will remain so until I can be convinced otherwise—that the Government have chosen not to apply the legislation universally across England and Wales, nor to apply it to all lap-dancing events, regardless of the frequency with which they occur in particular venues.
	A quick look at the debate on Report demonstrates the great strength of feeling on the issue in all parts of the House. I am concerned that the industry will take advantage of the legislation—I have seen that happen in my constituency and in Durham and Brighton. If there is a loophole, the men who control that area of the sex industry will exploit it. As a result of what is proposed, local authorities will not be obliged to adopt the legislation and can continue, if they wish, to licence lap-dancing clubs like cafés, relying only on the will of the council. Even if there is local opposition, like there was and still is in Stourbridge, local people will not necessarily be guaranteed a greater say in the licensing process unless Dudley, my local authority, takes up the legislation. Local authorities that do not adopt the powers will be vulnerable to challenge by the lap-dancing industry. It is an industry with a great deal of finance, and I believe that some local authorities will cave in to pressure from this strong and serious lobby.
	Local authorities will also be prevented from applying greater controls to lap-dancing events if they occur 11 times or less in a particular venue each year. That puts the safety of performers at such venues at serious risk and also duplicates and undermines an existing discretionary power in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I referred to an owner of a venue in Committee who welcomed the new legislation, because he felt that he could get all the bars and pubs in Stourbridge to apply for up to 11 events a year and thereby effectively have a mobile lap-dancing club around the area. If Dudley council is not robust and does not pick up the legislation, that could still happen in my constituency.

Lynda Waltho: I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, the Lib Dems in Stourbridge have supported my position on the issue and have worked with me all the way along, so I do not necessarily have the same issue with Lib Dem concerns as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is key that the Government's response now should be robust and allow local authorities to consult properly and effectively. The consultation will be a fallacy and a waste of time if it is just an advert in the local paper. We must ensure that those who are affected—the people who live in the streets where such venues are proposed; those who live next door; those who go to nearby colleges; those who have to walk past on the way to stations such as Stourbridge Junction or Stourbridge Town—are consulted. Young women who stay behind to do extra work or extra-curricular activities will have to walk past such venues. Indeed, they have already complained to me at my youth surgeries about catcalls and harassment. We must ensure that we consult everybody at every level, otherwise we will let them down.
	I am glad that the Government have responded to the concerns that Members from all parts of the House have voiced by committing to place a statutory duty on local authorities to consult on the adoption of the new powers and introduce an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to tighten the exemption, if it is found to be exploited. I am happy with that. However, I would have been happier had the provisions been applied across the board, but hey, I am a nice lady and I want to get the legislation through. I am happy with 80 per cent. of what I want, rather than fighting for 100 per cent. and losing. The two measures that the Government have set out address concerns expressed from all parts of the House, but I wish that they had been a bit bolder. The Government need to ensure that the measures are as robust as possible and that they are implemented to their fullest extent.
	I felt a lot happier when I read Lord Brett's strong reaction in the debate on the issue in the other place:
	"I commit to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to address concerns regarding the lack of a statutory duty on local authorities to consult with local people".
	He continued:
	"While the Government firmly believe that the exemption for infrequent events is a proportionate measure and should remain...I can reassure noble Lords that should it become clear that it is being exploited in a way that is obviously against the wishes of local people, they will have the power to tighten the exemption or remove it altogether."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 449-50.]
	It is important that we underline that point.
	I support the change of name from "sex encounter venue", although I was worried at first. I can go along with the change to "sexual entertainment venue", if the Minister truly believes that that will afford the women who work in them a degree of protection and some status or dignity. Many of the current or previous performers whom I spoke to said that they felt that the term "sexual encounter" almost presumed that all the women in such venues would be available for sexual encounters with whoever visited. I therefore understand their objection and agree with the change of name.
	Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister to confirm that clubs that have previously been granted permission to open, including another club in Stourbridge—Stourbridge appears to be becoming the lap-dancing Mecca of the midlands—will be subject to the legislation in the same way as new clubs. Permission in that case was granted more than a year ago. The club has done nothing about it, but it is now in the process of starting up. The owners believe that they will not be subject to the legislation. I want to make it clear that I believe that they will be, and I would like the Minister to confirm that for me.
	In conclusion, the campaign to stop lap-dancing clubs being licensed in the same way as cafés has played an important role in drawing public and Government attention to a deeply disturbing trend in British society: that of women and girls being portrayed as dehumanised sex objects. Lap dancing is just one manifestation of that culture. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recognised that a culture of treating women as sex objects fuels violence against women. The UK is a signatory to the UN convention and is in the process of forming a cross-Government strategy on violence against women, so this legislation is an important step towards bringing our policy together in this area. It is crucial, however, that the Government recognise that these reforms to the licensing of lap-dancing clubs represent a good step, but only a first step, towards achieving the much broader goal of ending the sexual objectification—that word is hard to say—of women and, ultimately, violence against women. I urge Ministers to ensure that issues such as lap dancing and the media representation of women are central to the cross-Government strategy to end violence against women once and for all.

John McDonnell: Despite my reservations on strict liability, I also welcome these amendments. The phrase "engaged in exploitative conduct" in the amendment will give greater clarity to the interpretation of the law. I would have preferred it if the legislation could have included a definition of trafficking based on international definitions, but I think that we will revisit that some time in the future.
	I welcome the amendments that deal with brothels, but I urge the police, local authorities and others to use clear judgment in the exercise of these powers, as they might well be putting women at risk in exercising them. We have heard how women working in brothels are, at least in some instances, more secure than those working on the streets. In fact, the figures show that women working on the streets are 10 times more vulnerable to attack than women working together in a unit.
	I pay tribute to those who have enabled these amendments to be shaped, and who have encouraged a wide and open debate on these issues. I became involved in this issue more than 25 years ago, when I was a member of the Greater London council. At the time, I was involved in working with the English Collective of Prostitutes and dealing with issues around King's Cross. I also hosted the first Safety First Coalition meetings after the Ipswich murders. Those meetings were held in this House. As a result of the Government listening to the debates involving those organisations, we have now arrived at some amelioration of this legislation.
	I should like to place on record my tribute to the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the GMB sex workers branch and the Zaccheus Christian trust, all of which were members of the Safety First Coalition, and all of which have briefed Members of Parliament extensively and worked hard to secure these amendments.
	I am sure that we shall revisit and review this issue in the years to come, but one issue that is reflected in the amendments is the fact that some women enter into sex work by choice. Whatever people may think about that, some women do—others do not do it through choice, however. I hope that the debate can now move on, so that we can focus more clearly on why women enter sex work other than through choice. The issues include how we tackle poverty and drug dependency, as well as mental illness and the vestiges of the implications of child abuse. Let us now look more thoroughly at the development of Government policy in those areas so that we can tackle the issue of forced prostitution. As I have said, I welcome these amendments, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to the stage of the debate that was encouraged by the coalition.

Denis MacShane: I wish that I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in congratulating the English Collective of Prostitutes, but that organisation has consistently opposed all campaigning efforts to slow down trafficking. Indeed, it was quite violently—I would almost say vulgarly—opposed to the propositions that have come back from the Lords, which are of huge significance.
	The House is empty because this is the last moment before Prorogation, but this is one of the most profound changes in our law that we have adopted in recent years. We are completely altering the whole approach to the abuse and dehumanisation of women. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) struggled over the word "objectification" and, like her, I have some difficulty in spluttering out that terminology. That is the whole purpose of the sex industry, however. It removes from women their womanhood and turns them into mechanical objects of sexual pleasure who accept a large number of penises every day to satisfy men's desire. This legislation now focuses on men, and it is extremely radical. The House of Lords had a very moving debate on this measure on Tuesday 3 November, and I am astonished that there has been absolutely no coverage of it.
	When I raised this matter on "Newsnight", a lady from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Mr. Jeremy Paxman rounded on me and abused me, saying that there were no trafficked women and that there was no problem of any sort. What world are they living in?

John McDonnell: rose—

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I profoundly disagree with him. That organisation has done a huge disservice to the cause of trafficked women and coerced sex slaves.
	I particularly welcome and endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge. I very much hope that my own council, Rotherham metropolitan borough council, will seek to use this legislation—without endless consultation—to listen to the residents of Rotherham who are sick and tired of the ever-increasing presence of these clubs and institutions in which women are turned into dehumanised sex objects for the pleasure of men, whether those men are leering at them, having a discussion about Lib Dem policy in a private booth or doing whatever else might happen in a private booth.
	I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) went to Soho and could find only contented prostituted women who were happy to discuss their trade with him. Again, however, this simply defies every statistical and academic survey in every country. Those surveys find that a minimum of between 80 and 90 per cent. of prostituted women are desperate to get out of the business. They are in it because of drug dependency or coercion, or because they have been beaten up or raped. We must remove ourselves from this happy hooker, Belle de Jour nonsense. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that prostituted women are in the business simply because they have chosen the profession just as a doctor, a lawyer or a Member of Parliament might—although when we consider the way in which women Members of Parliament are about to be treated under the Kelly proposals, there will soon be fewer and fewer of them.

Denis MacShane: We have here a fundamental difference. I am sorry—I am really trying to make a short speech, but I find myself disagreeing with right hon. and hon. Friends on my own side.
	I can imagine almost any profession, business or trade in the world that I would be happy for any of my three daughters to go into, or that I would have been happy for my mother, my partners and other women friends to go into. However, I really cannot accept that accepting a number of penises in one's orifices in order to gratify the pleasures of men is a profession that we should dignify as just another trade that a Select Committee of this House goes and gives an approving pat on the head to. I therefore welcome the radical nature of this legislation and I ask right hon. and hon. Members to read the Lords debate, particularly the speech of His Grace, the Archbishop of York and the speeches of Lady peers.
	May I say how much I welcome the change of heart of Conservative Members? I have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years and Conservative colleagues have joined me in the campaign against trafficking, but until quite recently they have rejected the notion that we have to tackle the demand side. That is what this Bill does.
	Let me pay tribute to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to the Leader of the House, to the Solicitor-General and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who is replying to this debate and indeed, to the entire Home Office ministerial team. When some of us started out on this road three or four years ago, it was inconceivable that we could have brought about this change in law.
	Let us be clear now from this House—there has been no publicity of any sort; "Newsnight" has not had another discussion;  The Guardian, which ran a front-page report saying that trafficking was virtually non-existent, has not reported on this—that the House of Lords was right. Men who go into a massage parlour, a brothel or one of these private booths in a lap-dancing establishment and find themselves having sex with a woman who has been trafficked or coerced or obliged to be there under some pressure from the male controllers or male pimps will now find that that is potentially a crime. That man can be arrested and can appear in front of a magistrates court where he will be named and shamed. Yes, it puts all the responsibility on men.
	Only one other country, Sweden, has gone fully down this road, while Finland has gone partially down it. We are the third. I think that this is a huge advance for what I consider to be 21st-century politics, in which women will cease to be dehumanised sex objects for huge amounts of profit. If there is no demand, supply will dry up. If we make a start with Britain, let us take this campaign forward into other countries and make it a worldwide campaign.
	The Archbishop of York sits in the other place not far from where William Wilberforce, representing the great city of Hull, once sat. It took him 30 years or more to persuade us to get rid of slavery involving principally black Africans at the time. We are now at the start of the process of outlawing the slavery that dehumanises women and of making trafficking and coercion, prostitution and violence against women to please men something that we can, bit by bit, eliminate. I congratulate Ministers, this House and the House of Lords on passing this radical, dramatic, reforming Bill, of which the entire Houses of Parliament should be very proud indeed.

Alan Campbell: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond briefly to colleagues' comments. First, I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that this is an important measure, but it has been a learning experience for us all. Even today, we have seen disagreement on some aspects—but, I hope, a broad acceptance of the Bill's importance.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) focused on clause 13 and our efforts to ensure that we focus on those we set out to help. I believe that the Lords amendments help in that regard.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) asked about consultation. It is, of course, up to local authorities to carry out that consultation; it is not new to them, as they have existing duties to consult in all sorts of way. We expect the exercise to be meaningful, but if the hon. Gentleman is content, I will look at any guidance that goes out to ensure that the exercise is meaningful.
	In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), who asked whether local authorities will need to consult if they do not adopt the legislation, yes they will. We do not expect them to be shy about doing that; they came forward and told us that they wanted these powers. If they do not adopt them, they will still have to consult on them. She also mentioned the Home Secretary's review of temporary event notices—a commitment that we gave during deliberations in this House, which still stands. As to the owners of existing clubs in her constituency who are somehow under the belief that this legislation will not apply to them, let me just reaffirm that it will.
	 Lords amendment  6  agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 7 to 24 agreed to.

Alan Campbell: The Government have made a number of amendments to the alcohol provisions in response to the concerns that were expressed in both this House and in the other place. Amendment 25 removes clause 27 because the current maximum fine has never been imposed. We therefore accept that the clause is unnecessary. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 31 to allow the police to take a young person home or to a place of safety if they are issued with a direction to leave and the police suspect they are under 16. Safeguarding these vulnerable people is paramount and these amendments offer an important safeguard to protect children without making directions to leave any less effective.
	Amendment 29 responds to the concerns of the Local Government Association by allowing members of the licensing authority to act as "interested parties", meaning that they can object to a licence application or initiate a licensing review. Following on, amendments 55 and 59 remove the provisions to allow licensing authorities to impose general licensing conditions, which both local authorities and the licensed trade were very concerned about and are unnecessary in light of amendment 29. Amendments 28, 65, 67 and 69 to 86 are simply consequential to amendments 55 and 59.
	Amendments 52 to 54, 56 to 58, 64, 66 and 68 all ensure that the mandatory conditions work as intended by allowing other bodies to exercise some discretion in their implementation, ensuring that the conditions in individual licences are updated if the mandatory conditions are updated, and take account of the Legislative Reform (Supervision of Alcohol Sales in Church and Village Halls &c.) Order 2009, which has come into force since the Bill was introduced. I invite the House to accept the amendments.

James Brokenshire: We are obviously pleased that the Government have listened to a number of points made in Committee and during the course of the Bill's passage. I was very pleased to note that the Minister accepted that the need for clause 27 was questionable on the basis, as he said, that no one had actually received the current £500 fine up to now. As the British Retail Consortium put it in its briefing note on this clause:
	"no person since 2004 has been given a fine of more than £250 meaning that the current fine of £500 has never been used. We do not understand the logic of altering at this time."
	It is perhaps not too surprising that the Government have now re-thought their approach and having put the measure in have, on reflection, decided to take it out. However, in doing so the Minister needs to clarify whether the intent is in any way to move more down the summary justice route for this offence—the "policing by parking ticket" approach or conditional caution culture that has been talked about so much in recent weeks and months.
	One of the rationales behind increasing the fine, as we understood it in the context of how the debate was articulated, was to send out a strong message about the seriousness of the offences, but the corollary of reversing this change should not, in our judgment, be seen as any suggestion that this offence should not be taken seriously. Will the Minister comment on whether this issue is at the forefront of his mind and whether his Department anticipates issuing any further guidance or indication as to the way in which these sorts of offences should be dealt with?
	Lords amendments 26 and 27, which relate to clause 31, are an improvement on what we had before, but we still question whether the most appropriate way in which to deal with a child who represents a risk of disorder is simply requiring that child to leave. I welcome the fact that a constable using the power contained in section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 may remove a young person whom he or she suspects to be under 16 to a place of safety or a place where that person resides, but the key word is "may".
	This is, of course, connected with the issue of discretion. The Minister will doubtless seek to rely on amended guidance to address the dispersal of those under 16, and on the police's duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to have regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in carrying out their functions. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how moving on a 10, 11 or 12-year-old who is at risk of causing disorder can be the most appropriate course of action. Surely at the very least there should be a presumption that a teenager falling within the ambit of those provisions should be taken home, or to a safe place. If a child is at risk of offending, that should be flagged up to ensure that the offending does not subsequently occur. We should be talking about prevention, and about the need to address the risk by more concerted action than simply moving the problem to a different location.
	I understand the point that was made about large groups of teenagers. Perhaps it is in that context that the Government seek to extend the power to deal with those under the age of 16. However, the amended power needs to be used with great care. The well-being and welfare of young children—let me put it that way—must be at the forefront of what we are trying to achieve. Our aim must be to prevent them from offending and to ensure that their own safety is not put at risk in any way.
	Lords amendment 29, which would insert a new clause after clause 32, concerns interested parties. In Committee, we discussed the absurdity of the current position. Local councillors seem to be unable to issue objections to licensing applications in their own areas if they live outside a restricted zone containing the licensed premises. I think that ensuring that the interests of local communities in respect of the licensing laws are properly reflected is a move in the right direction, but in our view that is only a start. Much more fundamental reform of the licensing laws is required to rebalance the provisions in favour of local communities and local authorities.
	We look forward to continuing the debate on more effective use of licensing powers to control the excesses of alcohol in communities and to start to deal with the abuses that binge drinking has brought, and continues to bring, to many of our neighbourhoods and communities throughout the country.

Keith Vaz: It is most pleasing to see Government and Opposition working together to try to strengthen proposed legislation before it becomes law, rather than passing legislation before reflecting on it and wanting to change some of it, which is what we have done over the past 10 years in respect of the so-called 24-hour drinking culture.
	I commend the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on what he said about alcohol abuse. The Government have rightly ensured that penalties will be tougher and that there will be stronger provisions to deal with alcohol abuse, which remains a key issue for local communities. As he told us, 50 per cent. of crime in this country is in some way alcohol-related. Any hon. Member who represents a town or city will be aware of the disorder that occurs on Friday and Saturday nights as a result of alcohol abuse, for it is there for all to see.
	Police budgets are relevant to the problem. The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, who is on the Front Bench today, will appear before the Home Affairs Committee to talk about police numbers on, I believe, 24 November. If we are to ensure that resources are properly directed so that the police can do their job, we must also ensure that we do not put in the way obstacles such as the availability of alcohol. So much police time is taken up by dealing with violence in city centres on Friday and Saturday evenings.
	I welcome what the Government have done in the amendments. I think that the toughening of the penalties is extremely appropriate. I also welcome what the Opposition have done. I have only one caveat. The Select Committee has consistently pressed the Government on the issue of a floor price for alcohol, which we believe would deal with the problem of the availability of cheap alcohol in supermarkets. There is no point in tabling amendments, proposing legislation affecting licensed premises and urging local authorities to act in a particular way when supermarkets are allowed to sell alcohol as a loss leader. People are pre-loaded—tanked up—before they go out on Friday and Saturday nights, and everything that follows is due to their ability to buy cheap alcohol at supermarkets.
	Of course we welcome what the Government are doing. It is right for them to be tough in this area of policy, and it is right that the Opposition should be with them on that. I must say to them, however, that there are ways in which we can move forward. We can reduce the cost of policing, and we can ensure that local communities can have a peaceful time at weekends.

Paul Holmes: The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, observed that it was good to see constructive engagement between Government and Opposition. Over the past year I have probably seen more give and take, with the Government listening to suggestions and adopting them, than I have seen in the case of most other Bills with which I have been involved during my eight years in the House. Inevitably, many of our proposals in Committee last February were turned down, but, as is so often the case, were then accepted in the other place. There has been more acceptance of Opposition points made today during what has been a constructive debate, despite the interventions of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, unfortunately, is no longer present.
	Lords amendment 25 will remove the provision that increases the maximum fine for drinking in a public place from £500 to £2,500. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, and as I pointed out in Committee in February, that is fairly pointless. Given that the maximum £500 penalty has never been imposed, what is the point of increasing it by 500 per cent.? Making criminal policy by means of macho newspaper headlines is rather counter-productive. It was a welcome step forward that the Government accepted that and dropped the proposal.
	Amendments 26 and 27 deal with under-16s found drinking in a public place. Initially, the legislation said that they could be dispersed. It is good that the Government accept the amendments, which say that in such circumstances a police constable should not just disperse children under 16, but should look to take them to their residence or some other place of safety.

Paul Holmes: The hon. Gentleman's comments bring me on to the point that I was about to make. I recommend that the Minister and his colleagues also look to take more proactive action. Let me give the example of something I witnessed when on patrol in Chesterfield with Derbyshire police this summer. On one evening, I went out in the van that undertakes what the police there call the Be Safe programme. They adopted it as an experiment for the school summer holidays, but it was so successful that they have now extended it into the autumn and intend to make it more permanent.
	We were called by some residents just before 9 o'clock at night. A group of young and obviously drunk teenagers was shouting and urinating in the street. Instead of just moving them on or taking them straight home, which is what the police would normally have done, because they were part of the Be Safe programme they took the teenagers to a Derbyshire county council youth services building, where youth workers and a police constable were in attendance. The youth workers then went through individually with each young teenager the reasons why they had been out drinking and why they deemed that to be an enjoyable way to spend an evening, and why they did not take advantage of all the alternative ways to spend their time.
	Afterwards, instead of taking the teenagers home, which is the normal police practice, they called the parents in; they insisted the parents had to come and collect their child, or else they would, effectively, have ended up in the cells overnight. Given that this was a Friday night and many parents were themselves either drinking at home or had been out to the pub to mark the end of the working week, most of them had to book a taxi to take them to collect their children. All but one of them was very indignant, not at the police for disrupting their family life, but at their children—and far more so than if the police had simply taken them home. In fact, one boy said, "Why don't you just take me home like you normally do?"
	The process that the families had to go through was far more of an inconvenience than the usual practice. The police found it so effective that they have turned it from a six-week experiment for the school holidays to, it is to be hoped, a permanent feature—they are certainly running it through the entire autumn and I witnessed it again recently on Halloween when I was out with the police again.
	Such measures are a good step, requiring the police not just to pour alcohol down a drain and move people on, but to take, and be involved in, much more proactive measures. We need to change the attitude of society and the attitude of families about what their children are doing when they are out on the streets drinking under age.
	Amendments 29, 52 to 59 and 64 to 86 address the mandatory licensing conditions for alcohol. I have two points to make on that. I made one of them in Committee in February. The Government have taken the power to impose no more than nine mandatory licence conditions on pubs. I asked at that time, why nine, rather than five, 13, 20 or whatever the appropriate figure might be? I asked how they had arrived at the figure of nine. I did not get an answer then, but I hope that now, the best part of a year later, the Minister may have been provided with an answer by his civil servants.
	I welcome amendment 29 in particular, which addresses the problem of councillors who represent a ward but who do not live in it taking part in the process as interested bodies, rather than just those in a ward who live near a pub, or, perhaps, a lap-dancing club—those were the specific examples we addressed when we discussed this matter in Committee earlier in the year. I gave a specific example from a London borough concerning a lap-dancing club—they are, of course, licensed premises. Local residents had lots of concerns and fears about the effect that the club was having on the neighbourhood, but they were scared and intimidated and would not stand up in public to raise their concerns. Their councillor was happy to speak about that, but was barred by the law from doing so because they lived just outside the boundary. It is good to see that the Government have accepted the argument we have been making and are incorporating it into the Bill in amendment 29.

James Brokenshire: The Conservatives made it clear in Committee and on Report that we would support measures to deal with the serious problem of gang-related violence, which affects so many communities and young people up and down our country. In the past fortnight, the charity Catch22 published a survey of young people's experiences of crime and put this issue into context by suggesting that more than one in four of the young people that it had surveyed had been threatened with a weapon, such as a knife or a gun, and almost one in six had had a weapon used against them.
	If that were an isolated survey, it might be more easy to cast doubt on it, or to criticise or discount it in some way, but it was published against a backdrop of other surveys. Action for Children reports that becoming a victim of crime, particularly violent crime, is a real fear for children and young people growing up in the UK today, and according to polling of young people conducted by MORI for the Youth Justice Board, in the past 12 months nearly a third of 11 to 16-year-olds in mainstream education in England and Wales carried a weapon, with more than half of all excluded pupils admitting to having carried a knife.
	The desire is to ensure that young people approach adulthood full of enthusiasm for their future, with opportunities calling them from every direction. For too many young people in Britain today, such optimism is not there because of fears for their safety. Given that gang culture, gang activity and gang membership can make that situation much more serious, the provisions needed to be examined and considered appropriately.
	Vulnerable young people—those with poor educational attainment, weak family structures, addiction, mental illness or unemployment—are being targeted for gang membership, because it gives them a perverse sense of security and of family. That is why it is important that measures are put in place to undermine the deliberate tactics that many gangs seek to use to weaken family ties and to draw individuals away from the traditional support structures. These gangs use acts of sickening violence, and imprisonment may even be a perverse part of a rite of passage in gang membership.
	As hon. Members will know, the backdrop to these amendments is the case of Shafi and Ellis  v. Birmingham city council, in which the Court of Appeal determined that injunctions under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 could not apply to the cases in which they were being sought. On the basis of what Birmingham city council said about the impact that the injunctions were having on dealing with gangs in its area and its fear that gang violence was increasing as a consequence of the loss of that specific measure, the proposals were introduced in the House.
	The one slightly cautionary note that I should sound against that backdrop goes back to what the Court of Appeal said at the time of the judgment in that case. Paragraph 68 of the judgment of Sir Anthony Clarke, the then Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Rix states:
	"However, we are confident that the courts have ample powers to deal with them"—
	the "them" being the defendants. The judgment continues:
	"The difficulty for the council here was that, as was submitted on behalf of the respondents, the case against these individuals was very thin on the facts. There is no reason why an ASBO should not be made against those against whom the evidence is sufficient, which must be true in many cases. Moreover, there may be exceptional cases where it would be appropriate to grant an injunction. This is not such a case."
	I highlight that only because the amendments put important mechanisms in place relating to the need for a review and for consultation and guidance. A range of measures might now be available to local authorities and the police in seeking to undermine gang-related violence and gang-related "nuisance"—I call it that for the purposes of the section 222 injunctions, but it has a much bigger impact on people's daily lives. There needs to be greater clarity on the use of these powers in respect of serious crime prevention orders and the range of other sanctions available, to ensure that we do not end up with an ever-widening toolkit, with potentially overlapping remits, and that it is clear which intervention is likely to be the most effective in dealing with a particular circumstance. Therefore, it is essential that we scrutinise closely the import of all the increased powers that various authorities will have and the impact that they will make.
	Obviously, we welcome certain changes that have been made as these provisions have been refined—we discussed this in Committee. It came up late in the consideration of the Bill—certainly in this House—and I am pleased to note that certain points that we flagged up were picked up in the other place and that there has been some movement on them. I am thinking, for example, about restrictions such that these orders will last for two years—thus, bringing them into line with certain other provisions—as opposed to making them indefinite, and the provision ensuring that reviews take place. Again, that reflects some of the antisocial behaviour order practices and procedures and the process of seeking to streamline those.
	It would be helpful if the Minister clarified one outstanding issue: the potential application of the orders to the under-18s. The clear message that came out in this House and in the other place was that it was not intended that they should apply; the Government might come back and look at more orders dealing with the under-18s. The point at issue is that if the orders were applied to someone who was under-18—this is my understanding, and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am in any way wrong—a breach of the injunction would continue to be dealt with by the High Court or a county court as a civil matter, despite the fact that the child could be under arrest and the penalty imposed for breaching the injunction could include imprisonment, rather than the youth court. That distinction needs to be reflected upon. I note the requirement for consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and that point may well be reflected on in guidelines.
	The provisions will be subject to formal review by the Secretary of State after three years. Will the Minister explain how he anticipates that being undertaken? Would it simply be done by the Secretary of State? Do Ministers anticipate the appointment of someone else to conduct that review on their behalf? There is a need for the continuing assessment of potential human rights issues and a need to deal with how that fits with the overall case law that applies in respect of similar orders, where the McCann standard of proof applies. We have raised that on many occasions in this House. These orders seek to differentiate themselves by applying the civil test—the balance of probabilities. How will all this fit together?
	In conclusion, we welcome the changes that have been made to these provisions in the other place, but we will need to ensure that the powers are kept under scrutiny, that they will work as a matter of law and, most importantly, that they will have the desired effect of bringing relief to the communities that continue to suffer from gang-related violence and all the evils that many of these insidious gangs seek to perpetrate on the young people who live there—and, indeed, on the older people who live there too. Such behaviour has a serious impact on many people's quality of life and that is why it must remain a clear focus for all Governments in the future.

Paul Holmes: Although we welcome amendments 30 to 39 as a partial step forward in the right direction, we need to remember the background. The courts rejected the experiment in Birmingham on the grounds that other measures, such as ASBOs, could be used instead, and that there was not enough evidence from police and councillors in Birmingham to justify the imposition of such injunctions.
	Many people have said that, depending on how the injunctions are used, they could be like control orders, and we have seen the legal difficulties and controversy over control orders when applied to terrorist suspects. An injunction against a gang member to save them from themselves—to save them from harm—could require that they spend eight hours in one place, eight hours in another and eight hours in another. It could be a 24-hour control order, and as we know, the provision could last up to two years. This is a controversial and powerful measure. The courts rejected the Birmingham experiment, saying, "No, there is not the evidence and there are other measures that can be used." None the less, the Government felt that they should go ahead, and have made some compromises, as we see in amendments 30 to 39, which are welcome.
	Another concern and point of debate that remains is the fact that we are not looking to impose an injunction against gang members in order to stop them carrying out criminal activity, which after much debate is the partial definition of a gang that has been arrived at. We are looking at imposing injunctions on gang members to save them from gang-related activity that might be aimed at them. It is quite a controversial initiative. We have legislation to protect people from themselves when they are judged not to have the mental capacity to do so or the ability to look after their own affairs properly. We are saying in this case that although someone has mental capacity we will none the less impose injunctions on them to stop them going into situations where they might be subject to gang violence, with all the spill-over and bad effects that that has on the rest of the community around them. We are considering quite controversial measures, hence the intense debate on the matter over the course of this year.
	The fact that amendments 30 to 39 impose a two-year time limit and say that after three years there should be a review by the Secretary of State are welcome steps to meeting some of the concerns, but we still have to ask how that review will be carried out. Parliament will not automatically get the chance to debate the review. Baroness Miller proposed a sunset clause so that the legislation would fall at some point—say at the end of three years—and said that if the Government of the day felt that the experiment had proved itself, they could reintroduce it. Parliament would then get its guaranteed chance to review the provision and how it had worked, to debate it and to discuss whether to continue or renew it in law. The amendments do not give us such an opportunity.
	I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us on how the Secretary of State will carry out the review, but will it automatically be debated in Parliament and will notice have to be taken of that debate? We could have done more to reassure those who have doubts, but amendments 30 to 39 are a step in the right direction.

David Hanson: I shall try to answer some of the points that have been mentioned during the debate. I welcome the welcome that the two Opposition Front Benchers gave to the steps that the Government have taken.
	We have said that there will be a review, that it will be held in three years, that it will be undertaken by the Secretary of State and that the outcome of that review will be published to Parliament. I cannot yet tell either the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) or the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) what the format of the review will be. It is likely that it will be about 18 months before we initiate the review, and that will properly be a decision for whoever happens to be the Home Secretary at that time. That might be my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) or another Labour Member—who knows what will happen in these changing times? I am confident that whoever it is will take the right decision and will bring back to Parliament a report on these issues so that they are considered in due course.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned the aspect of the injunctions that concerns those aged under 18. Under 18s can be taken to the High Court or the county court for breach on an injunction but the key point is that the only disposal available for those issues at this stage is a fine, not imprisonment. He will know that we are actively considering a range of issues to do with under-18 injunctions. We may return to the matter very shortly, but we have to consider everything carefully and hon. Members will have opportunities to debate the issues in due course.
	This is a key provision. A number of tools in the civil and criminal law deal with gangs and the cancer that they can spread. The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned criminal activity and the damage that gangs do, but a range of options exist to tackle them. We need to look at them and use them in an appropriate way.
	As the hon. Member for Chesterfield said, this injunction tool is designed to be a preventive measure, to be used to help and support individuals who might be sucked into the gang culture or who are already in it. Getting such people out of gang culture will benefit both them and, ultimately, wider society. It is not about taking action to crack down on gangs' criminal activity, which is something that should, and will, be undertaken as a matter of course by police forces across the UK.
	As the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, the proposal arose from the discussions in Birmingham on the Court of Appeal decision. We needed to reflect on that: I think that we have, and I hope that the House agrees that we have listened to the concerns expressed in the other place. I hope too that the amendments on the time limit for the injunctions and on the review will give some comfort to those who felt that the proposals in the Bill were a step too far.
	I believe that these are valuable amendments and that they give the proper assurances that were sought. I commend them to the House.
	 Lords amendment 30 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 31 to 39 agreed to.

Alan Campbell: The amendments were supported by the Government in the other place and are the result of listening to the debates that have taken place in this House and in Committees of both Houses, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Over the summer, we considered those views carefully, and the responses received to the Home Office consultation document "Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database" that was issued in May. We accept the concerns raised by the Committees and other stakeholders about making the necessary changes to the law by means of an enabling power.
	The issue of retaining DNA and fingerprints from those arrested but not convicted is an important topic that deserves the full attention of everyone involved in the legislative process. We judge that the approach taken in the Bill gave us a sensible opportunity to demonstrate that we were committed to implementing the S and Marper judgment, to consulting swiftly but thoroughly on the detail of the policy and to giving Parliament an opportunity approve the policy through the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Given the strength of feeling on this issue, and the importance of ensuring that we move forward with consensus, we accept the view that the issue would be dealt with more appropriately in primary legislation. We therefore decided to invite Parliament to remove clauses 96 to 98 from the Bill. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will bring forward appropriate measures in primary legislation, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his written ministerial statement yesterday. That approach will allow full debate and scrutiny of the proposals in both Houses. I therefore ask the House to agree with the Lords in their amendments.

James Brokenshire: I admire the Minister's elegant attempt to stay on the front foot on this issue, but let us be clear: this is a retreat. The Government had wanted to grow the DNA database as a primary policy principle, but they cannot do that now. They wanted to retain profiles on people arrested but never charged with or convicted of any offence, but they have now accepted that they can no longer do that, and hold such information for ever and a day. They also wanted to hide retention away in an order-making power that would have given huge discretion to Ministers, but they have been thwarted by the Lords amendments before us this afternoon.
	Finally, they have had to move away from proposals they made only a few weeks ago to retain for 12 years DNA profiles on those arrested for certain offences. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the order-making power should be withdrawn from the Bill. Indeed, as we said clearly, it should never have been in the Bill. We can look, too, at how the provision was withdrawn—on almost the last day of the Bill's consideration in the House.
	There is little doubt about the importance of DNA as an evidential tool in prosecuting and bringing crimes to justice. DNA data can form an important part of the evidential case to prove guilt and ensure that serious criminals are brought to justice. The fight against crime, in particular certain serious crimes, depends on the use of modern scientific techniques, but a balance has to be struck between the interests of the community in preventing and detecting crime and the freedom of the individual. The Government have been on the wrong side of the line and their delay in responding to the S and Marper judgment raises a question about their commitment to deal with such a sensitive issue.
	The Government are—belatedly—seeking to respond. To be fair to Ministers, the proposals announced by the Home Secretary are a slight improvement on their previous position, but his statement raises a number of issues. The changes do not go as far as we would like.
	It is important to examine the statement to understand where the Government are moving now that they are withdrawing those clauses. The Home Secretary said that since the publication of the consultation document earlier this year the Home Office had sought to further the evidence base with additional research. Could the Minister explain what additional research has been undertaken? I am aware of the publication of the document on the Home Office website on DNA retention policy—the re-arrest hazard rate analysis—but as the Minister will be aware, it was discovered that the original scientific approach proposed in the consultation document had not been peer-reviewed, so it was premature to put it out in that form. Indeed, the document that has now been published accepts in part that line of argument. Can the Minister explain who prepared that work? What analysis was made? Was it peer-reviewed? What tests have been applied as to the robustness of the new document that was published alongside the Government's latest proposals?
	It is important to understand that, because yesterday the Home Secretary suggested that we could reduce the retention periods and that we might look at what might be described as arrest to arrest analysis, rather than the arrest to conviction approach in the original proposals. Can the Minister explain the basis for that change of view and the change in approach?
	The new analysis notes that there are still some important caveats. The document says that there is still some uncertainty about the line that has now been set—the six years—so it would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that point. In changing their view yet again, the Government have acknowledged that even their revised proposals may not be compliant with the S and Marper judgment and the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary said that although
	"the ECHR suggested that the seriousness of the alleged offence should be a factor in determining what length of retention was proportionate"—[ Official Report, 11 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 26WS.]—
	he claims that the evidence indicates that such an approach should not be taken. Obviously, there is a risk that the new approach the Government have decided to adopt may not be compliant with the European convention on human rights, so it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has obtained further legal advice in that regard.
	We understand that the Government propose to introduce dilution and greater transparency in the existing discretion of chief police officers to destroy DNA records that they may hold. Can the Minister give any indication of the likely factors? Will there be a right of appeal in those circumstances?
	We will consider the distinction that has been drawn in relation to terrorism and national security, but will the Minister explain whether there will be any judicial oversight on the initial assessment that will be undertaken in such cases? I understand from the statement that there is intended to be a two-year rolling review thereafter by a senior police officer, but will there be any oversight or appeal? What rank of officer will undertake that review? It is important to understand the approach that the Government are now seeking to take in moving away from their previous position. Equally, how quickly do the Government anticipate that the changes will be implemented? Obviously, it is now a year since the S and Marper judgment, so it would be interesting if the Minister gave some clarity on how quickly they anticipate the change happening. In the interim, does the Minister anticipate issuing any revised guidance to police forces? We understand that police forces have been told effectively to carry on with data collection as though the S and Marper judgment had not happened. Again, clarification on that would be helpful to inform the debate.
	We believe that it is appropriate to introduce an approach to DNA retention similar to that introduced in Scotland, where the DNA profiles of those not convicted of an offence would be retained only in circumstances where charges relating to a crime of violence or a sexual offence had been brought. In those more restricted circumstances, DNA profiles could be retained for a maximum period of five years, subject to judicial oversight during the last two years—in other words, after three years. It is interesting that the Government have sought to take a different view. We disagree with the revised view that they have come up with, but we agree that the use, retention and destruction of DNA records and the oversight that sits behind it requires primary legislation to enable the full, detailed debate and examination in Parliament to take place that would have been prevented if the order-making power had been followed as the Government had originally intended.
	This is a significant issue. The number of profiles stored on the DNA database by police forces in England and Wales has reached more than 10 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. Yet, despite that growth, DNA detections have not grown in the same exponential way. More refinement, more focus and more attention are therefore needed. That is why we look forward to holding the debate when we return in the next Session and to the Government finally setting out their views in detail, finally starting to address the underlying fundamental issues and changing the approach that previously existed that certainly appeared to treat us all as potential suspects.

Paul Holmes: Lords amendments 40, 41 and 42 are very welcome, because they remove the Government's attempt to give themselves a blank cheque to act on such a controversial issue, whereby in light of the European ruling on DNA, they would say, "We'll go away and come up with suggestions in private. We'll write them into law. We'll put them through a Statutory Instrument Committee. There'll be no debate in Parliament. There'll be no primary legislation," and we would have to leave it to the Government to do things on the quiet. That was obviously, from day one, utterly unacceptable on such a major controversial issue as the retention of innocent people's DNA in particular.
	The haste earlier this year was quite inexplicable. We had a very good Public Bill Committee. Quite unusually for such Committees, we had the time to debate properly nearly everything that we wanted. We had some extra sittings in the evening to ensure that we could cover every issue properly, without feeling at the end of the debates in Committee that important issues had just gone by and not been discussed. It was a really good, constructive Committee. Yet at the very last minute, with no time for serious debate at all, the Government introduced two radical suggestions with big implications—one on gang injunctions, which we have just been discussing, and the other the blank-cheque approach to DNA that says, "Trust us."
	Well, no, on this issue above all, the public and Parliament do not trust the Government to go away, cook up something in a back room and pass it. It is welcome that at long last, right at the end of the process, the Government are accepting Lords amendments 40, 41 and 42, and are withdrawing the ridiculously badly thought-out and hasty proposal, made earlier in the year, that they should decide the matter on the quiet, without any public or parliamentary scrutiny.
	We understand that the issue will be back in the Queen's Speech next Wednesday, but at least it will be subject to proper debate, and at least there will be a piece of primary legislation. As for the suggestion that we keep innocent people's DNA for six years, that is still far too long, even if it is an improvement on previous Government practice. A constituent of mine, Tony Hedley, who was on a BBC radio programme yesterday speaking about this, would certainly feel that that was far too long. He had false allegations made against him with regard to a relatively trivial matter. The charges were quickly dropped, but he cannot get his DNA records back; they are still being held by Derbyshire police.
	Mr. Hedley has contacted Derbyshire police force many times, and I have written to it. He has contacted 10 Downing street twice, and had acknowledgements but no reply. Derbyshire police force says that it cannot get rid of the DNA records of that totally innocent person until the Government change their policies. I hope that the Government will change them dramatically.
	I do not know why, back in February, when the Government wanted a blank cheque, they did not just introduce amendments or new clauses to the Bill, implementing the Scottish practice, which already works very well in that part of the UK. The European Court of Human Rights has already declared that approach to be absolutely acceptable in terms of human rights legislation. If the Government had introduced such a system, the provisions would now be passing into law. Why they did not do that is impossible to understand. They did not need to go away and think about the matter, they did not need to do their own research, however half-baked that research may or may not, be, and they did not have to come up with their own suggestions.
	What is the basis for the suggestion, which we have heard, that an innocent person whose DNA is taken will either offend within six years or not at all, so the DNA can be got rid of after six years? What is the basis for such approaches? Why not just put into law the well-tried, successful and fairly widely accepted Scottish practice, which already works in part of the United Kingdom?

Alan Campbell: We have brought forward measures that were not only debated in Parliament, but subject to considerable debate outside Parliament. There has been a long consultation with the public on the measures, and over that time scale additional research has been undertaken, so we cannot be accused of seeking a blank cheque or pushing through measures. Nor can we be accused of proceeding with indecent haste on the issue, particularly when we have addressed the central concern raised in this House and another place, which is that there should have been primary legislation. All those factors have led us to our conclusion.
	Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) raised about DNA detections. He is right that the number of DNA detections has fallen in recent years. Over the past five years it has fallen by 11 per cent. That is because recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 22 per cent. in that period. If there are fewer crime scenes and fewer cases in which DNA has to be taken, it is hardly surprising that the amount of DNA available to the police and being used for detection should decrease.
	The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that we were somehow dragging our feet in responding to S and Marper. In Committee, although he disagreed profoundly with what we did, I thought that he agreed with the route that we had chosen. We were trying to respond to S and Marper; the reality is that Parliament disagreed with the route that we chose. I congratulate him, and to some extent the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, on their pre-emptive strike this afternoon on measures that will, I hope, be part of a future Bill that is to be debated very soon.
	The points about the validity or otherwise of Home Office research, and the issues to do with terrorist suspects, do not fall within the confines of the amendments that we are discussing, so I will not address them on this occasion. The reality is that we are meeting the challenge of S and Marper: we began to meet it within hours of the judgment, because the two individuals concerned were taken off the database. However, we sought, and are seeking, to introduce further measures that address the wider issues that the judgment raised. We are working very carefully with the Association of Chief Police Officers on changes to the database, but until the legislation changes, the practice does not need to change. I hope that the hon. Member for Chesterfield appreciates that. Until Parliament decides that the situation has changed, therefore, the process will continue as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, we have taken under-10s off the database.
	We are confident that we will continue to meet the S and Marper judgment. It is important that we meet it in a timely fashion, but it is also important, as the Committee of Ministers said, that we consider those matters very carefully indeed. We will have longer than we anticipated to do that. The Committee, through the judgment, gave us a very clear steer: although it upheld the point about individual rights for people who are on the database—S and Marper—it also accepted our right as a Government to decide where the balance lies on public protection. It is important that we get the balance right, and if it takes longer than we anticipated, so be it. However, by removing the measures from this Bill and, I hope, putting them into a future Bill, we will be able to do precisely that.
	 Lords amendment 40 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment s 41 and 42 agreed to.
	After Clause 111

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments 44, 45, 87 and 88.

David Hanson: Lords amendments 43 and 45 are proposed changes to section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Government introduced them in another place. They were proposed as a result of late representations from the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency. The proposed changes are simply clarifying measures. They seek to make it absolutely clear that those working for law enforcement agencies with a national jurisdiction, such as the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency, are entitled to obtain search warrants to enter and search premises under section 23(3) of the 1971 Act, when the court is content that the statutory criteria have been satisfied.
	Lords amendment 44 is also a small and minor amendment, which would correct a minor error in the commencement powers relating to clause 100. Lords amendment 87 would correct a minor typographical error in relation to section 185(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
	As this is almost the final moment of the Bill's passage, I should like to thank the official Opposition Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers for their co-operation and discussions over the past year or so, during the Bill's journey through both Houses. I joined in to assist the Bill's passage in June, and the Minister for Schools and Learners, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) played a significant part in it in his previous incarnation, for which I thank him. I also thank my noble Friends Lord West and Lord Brett, in another place, for their work on these provisions. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, I thank the Bill team and officials from the Home Office, who have spent a long time dealing with the legislation and deserve our respect and thanks.

James Brokenshire: I support Lords amendment 43, which clarifies the rules across the country. It is interesting to note that the provisions of the amendment already apply in Northern Ireland, as one of the subsequent amendments shows, and it therefore seems a sensible proposal to adopt.
	I thank the Minister for his kind comments, and in return I thank him and his team, and also the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for their constructive approach. As we have seen this afternoon, we have not always agreed on all issues—one would not expect us to—but we have all listened to what has taken place, and we look forward to continuing the debate and discussions on the key issues as we move forward into the next Session.
	I pass on my thanks to my noble Friends for their sterling work, and to the Bill team, the officials and everyone involved in the process. It has provided an opportunity to debate constructively some very important issues that affect many of our constituents, and we look forward to continuing that debate in the time ahead.

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the  Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
	The Speech was as follows:
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	 My Government's overriding priority has been to help families and businesses through difficult global economic times. My Government remains committed to delivering a fair and prosperous economy.
	 The strength of the financial sector is vital to the future vibrancy of the economy. Therefore, legislation has been enacted to ensure fairer and more secure protection for bank depositors and to improve the resilience of the financial sector.
	 Legislation has been enacted to create Saving Gateway Accounts to encourage people on lower incomes to save more by offering financial incentives.
	 Legislation has been enacted to promote local economic development and to create greater opportunities for community and individual involvement in local decision-making.
	 An Act has been passed to increase financial support to industry and to widen the support offered to exporters.
	 An Act has been passed to reform the welfare system, to increase the requirement for people to move from benefits towards sustained employment and to provide greater support, choice and control for disabled people.
	 My Government has remained committed to protecting the public and ensuring the nation's safety.
	 An Act has been passed to increase the effectiveness and public accountability of policing, to reduce crime and disorder and to enhance airport security.
	 An Act has been passed to  deliver a more effective, transparent and responsive justice system for victims, witnesses and the wider public. The Act will  improve the coroners service, and the process of death certification, to provide an increased focus on bereaved families, including the families of servicemen and women.
	 Legislation has been enacted to strengthen border controls, by bringing together customs and immigration powers. The Act will also ensure that newcomers to the United Kingdom earn the right to stay.
	 My Government has remained committed to ensuring everyone has a fair chance in life. Legislation has been brought forward to promote equality, fight discrimination and introduce transparency in the workplace to help address the difference in pay between men and women.
	 My Government has brought forward legislation to enshrine in law its commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020.
	 Because the health of the nation is vital to its success and well-being, an Act has been passed to strengthen the National Health Service. The Act creates a duty to take account of the new National Health Service Constitution that sets out the core principles of the Service and the rights and responsibilities of patients and staff. The Act also introduces measures to improve the quality of health care and public health.
	 An Act has been passed to reform education, training and apprenticeships, to promote excellence in all schools, to improve local services for children and parents and to provide a right for employees to request time for training. 
	 My Government has continued to take forward proposals on constitutional reform, including strengthening the role of Parliament. Legislation has been enacted to strengthen the regulation and enhance the transparency of party finance and expenditure.
	 An Act has been passed to create an independent authority to regulate and administer the allowances of Members of Parliament.
	 Legislation has been enacted to manage marine resources and to create a new right of public access to the coastline.
	 My Government has continued to work closely with the devolved administrations in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom. My Government remains committed to the Northern Ireland political process and has brought forward further measures for sustainable, devolved government.
	Members of the House of Commons
	 I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	 My Government has worked towards European action on economic stability, on climate change, on energy, enlargement and security.
	 My Government has worked for a coordinated international response to the global downturn, including by hosting the G20 Summit on financial markets and the world economy in April. My Government has continued to work as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, including at its sixtieth anniversary summit.
	 My Government has continued to press for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, for continued progress in Iraq and for effective measures to address international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.
	 My Government has continued to work with the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan for security, stability and prosperity.
	 The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive President Calderón of the United Mexican States and President Patil of the Republic of India.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	 I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.